do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-567/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — Mortgage loan agreement — Arbitration clause — Unfairness — Action by consumer — National procedural rule — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2015118EN.01000901.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt
(Case C-567/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Mortgage loan agreement - Arbitration clause - Unfairness - Action by consumer - National procedural rule - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract))
(2015/C 118/11)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national procedural rule pursuant to which a local court which has jurisdiction to rule on an action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract does not have jurisdiction to hear an application by the consumer for a declaration of unfairness of contract terms in the same contract, unless declining jurisdiction by the local court gives rise to procedural difficulties that would make the exercise of the rights conferred on consumers by the European Union legal order excessively difficult. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.


(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015049EN.01000201.xml










12.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 February 2015
(2015/C 49/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1314




JPY


Japanese yen


135,50




DKK


Danish krone


7,4440




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73960




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4585




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0465




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,6020




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,680




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,15




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2180




RON


Romanian leu


4,4473




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8252




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4606




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4268




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7726




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5272




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5388




KRW


South Korean won


1 250,19




ZAR


South African rand


13,3805




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0630




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,7218




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 510,21




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0918




PHP


Philippine peso


50,292




RUB


Russian rouble


74,6600




THB


Thai baht


36,929




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2370




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9653




INR


Indian rupee


70,5490






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-134/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Infrared thermal imagers)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, measuring equipment, thermal equipment








C_2015118EN.01000301.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Case C-134/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Infrared thermal imagers))
(2015/C 118/03)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EU) No 314/2011 of 30 March 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case T-77/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015  — Tronios Group International v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (SkyTec)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01004001.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/40





Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Tronios Group International v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (SkyTec)
(Case T-77/15)
(2015/C 118/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Tronios Group International BV

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SkyTec’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2014 in Case R 1681/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for annulment of British Sky Broadcasting Group;










—


order British Sky Broadcasting Group to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the earlier proceedings before OHIM.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-114/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old age and survivors’ insurance — Article 46a(3)(c) — Award of benefits — National rules against overlapping — Derogation — Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’  — National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme — Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period — Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 47)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: pension scheme, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU), working conditions








C_2015118EN.01000201.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
(Case C-114/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and survivors’ insurance - Article 46a(3)(c) - Award of benefits - National rules against overlapping - Derogation - Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’ - National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme - Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period - Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 47))
(2015/C 118/02)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as encompassing the part of the benefit resulting from a period of insurance during which the person concerned had the right to obtain an exemption from affiliation to the compulsory insurance scheme, in a situation where such affiliation, during the period in question, affects the extent of the social security benefit.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case T-67/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01003602.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/36





Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)
(Case T-67/15)
(2015/C 118/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN’ — Application for registration No 10 525 137

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1882/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and register the trademark applied for in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-70/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, infringement of EU law








C_2015118EN.01003701.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/37





Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
(Case T-70/15)
(2015/C 118/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision C(2014) 9236 final of 28 November 2014 on case AT.40199 Port of Split;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;










—


refer the case back to the European Commisison for further investigation and renewed decision; and










—


take such other or further actions as justice may require.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment and error of law by infringing the Commission’s obligations in handling a complaint by incorrectly assessing the European Union interest with regard to all three reasons brought forward by the Commission;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing the Commission’s obligations in handling a complaint, in particular failing to take into consideration all relevant matters of law and fact.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7486 — Ingram Micro/ANOV Expansion)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer equipment, economic concentration, electronic equipment, logistics, merger control








C_2015049EN.01000101.xml










12.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7486 — Ingram Micro/ANOV Expansion)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 49/01)
On 28 January 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7486. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-318/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of specific assessment — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telemedicine, trade-mark law








C_2015107EN.01002601.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/26






Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA)
(Case T-318/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of specific assessment - Duty to state reasons))
(2015/C 107/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vita Phone GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1072/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark LIFEDATA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vita Phone GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Case T-505/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark B — Earlier international figurative mark representing two extended wings — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015107EN.01002401.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/24






Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)
(Case T-505/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark B - Earlier international figurative mark representing two extended wings - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 107/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina, and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Xiuxiu Cheng (Budapest, Hungary)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2012 (Case R 193/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA and Xiuxiu Cheng.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case C-48/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/51/Euratom — Choice of legal basis — EAEC Treaty — Articles 31 EA and 32 EA — FEU Treaty — Article 192(1) TFEU — Protecting human health — Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption — Legal certainty — Sincere cooperation among the institutions)
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health control, health risk, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), legal basis, principle of legal certainty, radioactive pollution, water analysis, water consumption, water pollution








C_2015118EN.01001101.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/11





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-48/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/51/Euratom - Choice of legal basis - EAEC Treaty - Articles 31 EA and 32 EA - FEU Treaty - Article 192(1) TFEU - Protecting human health - Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation among the institutions))
(2015/C 118/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by N. Rouam, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;










3)


Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case C-66/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2015-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, freedom to provide services, hire purchase, registration tax, vehicle registration








C_2015138EN.01003802.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/38





Action brought on 12 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-66/15)
(2015/C 138/52)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and D. Τriantafillou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Hellenic Republic, by levying the whole amount of the registration tax payable on the registration of a vehicle which is rented or leased by a customer who is a Greek national from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the rental contract or lease contract and the duration of use of the vehicle concerned in the national territory of Greece, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU in relation to the freedom to provide services;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic, by imposing the whole of the registration tax payable on the registration by a supplier established in another Member State of vehicles which are leased or used on a hire-purchase agreement by nationals of Greece, without taking into consideration the duration of the lease (rental) contract and of use in the national territory of Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56-62 TFEU.
The imposition of the whole registration tax is disproportionate and hinders the free movement of services (see the case-law of the Court in Cura Anglagen, C-451/99, Coevering, C-242/05, Ilhan, C-42/08, and VAV Autovermietung GmbH, C-91/10).